BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 50/2012.
THIS THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- N. Bhasker Rao S/o. Satyanarayana, age
major, occ: agriculture, R/o. Nelhal village, Tq & Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Manager, Pragati Gramina Bank,
Yeragera Road Branch, Raichur. .
Date of institution :- 07-07-2012.
Date of disposal :- 20-09-2013
Complainant represented by Sri. C. Pandu, Advocate
Opposite Party represented by Sri. Sateesh.V. Advocate.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondent U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant purchased a tractor and trailor bearing Registration No. KA-36/TA-4043 and KA-36/TA-4044 by availing loan of Rs. 4,90,000/- from the Respondent’s Bank on 07-09-2006 which was repayable in 108 monthly installments of Rs. 27,300/-. Thereafter the complainant repaid Rs. 1,11,455/- towards the loan amount borrowed by him. However the Respondent’s Bank on 28-01-2011 seized the tractor of the complainant without giving any notice. Therefore the very seizure of the tractor is illegal and unlawful. When contacted the Respondent’s Bank asked the complainant to make payment of the entire outstanding loan amount and thereafter the sold tractor without issuing any notice to the complainant. This act of Respondent’s Bank amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The Respondent filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has not made out any case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the Respondent’s Bank. The Respondent’s Bank sanctioned the loan to the complainant with the conditions that the same shall be repaid in half yearly installments of Rs. 27,300/- with interest at the rate of 11% p.a. having liberty to recall the entire loan amount at its discretion in case of delay in repaying the loan amount as agreed with over due interest at the rate of 2% p.a. Further the complainant had offered his lands as security and mortgaged it by registered mortgage deed dt. 07-09-2006. The complainant agreeing to the terms and conditions executed the memorandum of agreement and covenants of co-obligant on 09-09-2006. The contention of the complainant that repayment was to be done at the rate of 2% interest is false and baseless. The repayment shown in para-2 of the complaint is admitted except Rs. 20,505/- and Rs. 14,000/- which was provided by the government as subsidy and rest of the contents of the said para are false and denied. However the complainant did not make repayment as per the agreed terms. The contents of Para- 3 & 4 of the complaint are false and denied. As the complainant failed to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions the Respondent recalled all the outstanding and called upon the complainant and the co-obligant to clear the dues. But they did not care to clear the dues. Therefore the Respondent’s Bank in pursuance of the hypothecation agreement was compelled to seize the tractor and trailor and thereafter the Respondent issued notice on 17-02-2011 calling upon the complainant to repay the loan amount within 7 days failing which they will sell the seized tractor and trailor in public auction. The complainant has intentionally avoided receiving the same. Therefore the Respondent sold the same in public auction by adopting the due process. The Respondent incurred expenses for publicity and other expenses and sold the tractor in public auction for Rs. 1,02,000/- and credited it into the loan account. The Respondent’s Bank made all efforts to get good price and accordingly got the best price. Therefore the Respondent’s Bank has not committed any illegal or unlawful activities in seizing the vehicle and selling it in public auction. The complainant offered to make payment are all false and baseless story. The contents of para- 5 to 8 are denied as false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent’s Bank There is no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant to escape from liability and to counter blast the suit filed by the Respondent’s Bank before the Civil Judge Raichur in OS NO. 147/2012 has filed this complaint. Therefore the complaint be dismissed in the interest of justice.
4. Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on nine documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. The Respondent to prove his case filed affidavit of one G. Laxmayya, which is marked as RW-1 and relied on eleven documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11.
5. Arguments heard on Respondent’s side.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent’s Bank against him.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
7. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In Negative
(2) In Negative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
8. There is no dispute with regard to the obtaining of loan of Rs. 4,90,000/- by the complainant from the Respondent’s Bank for the purchase of tractor and trailor. The complainant’s contention is that, the said loan amount has to be repaid in 108 monthly installments of Rs. 27,300/- with interest at 2% p.a,. This cannot be possible or viable because if the amount of Rs. 27,300/- per month was to be paid in 108 monthly installments the repayment amount would be exorbitant and unimaginable. The rate of interest 2% p.a. is also unimaginable when the present rate of interest usually charged by the Respondent’s Bank for the loan granted is considered.
9. On perusal of the simple mortgage deed marked as Ex.P-3 it shows that the repayment of loan amount was Rs. 27,300/- half yearly beginning from 31-01-2007. However on perusal of materials placed before us it is found that, the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement had not repaid the loan amount borrowed by him from the Respondent’s Bank. He should have paid Rs. 27,300/- on or before 31-03-2007, but as per his admission only he paid for the first time Rs. 15,000/- on 05-12-2007, thereafter he paid Rs. 40,000/- on 03-03-2010 and made some payment on 30-06-2010. As per the Respondent’s Bank he had not made payment of Rs. 20,505/- and Rs. 14,000/- as contended by him because the said amounts were received from the government as subsidy and it was credited to the loan account of the complainant. The above aspects shows that the complainant was a defaulter in making repayment of loan amount borrowed by him from the Respondent’s Bank. Therefore the Respondent’s Bank as per the terms and conditions of the simple mortgage deed executed by the complainant had every right to seize and sell the mortgaged property. In this regard clause 2 and 4 of the mortgage deed Ex.P-3 is very clear and it reads thus:
“If the mortgagor/’s defaults/default in repayment of any one installment or interest for any quarter or any part of the principal and/or interest, on the due date thereof, the whole of the balance amount then remaining outstanding, including interest, costs, charges, expenses etc., becomes repayable at once not withstanding the terms and conditions referred to in clause No.1 above on the first charge of the schedule property and on the first charge of whatever crop or crops or yield raised from time to time on the mortgaged property or by enforcement of right the mortgage has against any properties by hypothecated in favour of the mortgagee”.
“The Mortgagee shall be entitled to cause the mortgaged property to be sold by taking legal proceedings and in the event of the sale proceeds being insufficient to completely discharge the mortgage money due from the Mortgagor/s, the Mortgagor/s shall be personally liable to pay the balance remaining due or any sum accruing due from the Mortgagor/s under this deed. It is also hereby agreed by the Mortgagor/s that the mortgagee shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of every other property of the Mortgagor/s movable or immovable, wherever situated in respect of such balance or dues of the Mortgagee”.
To show that, the Respondent’s Bank before taking action against the complainant for recovery of amount due from him had taken all legal steps and procedures and finally sold the tractor and trailor in auction produced the notice issued to the complainant dt. 10-01-2011 calling upon him to pay the outstanding amount or else the tractor will be sold in auction which is marked as Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-6 notice intimating the complainant about the sale of the tractor in public auction if he fails to make the payment within 7 days. Therefore the Respondent’s Bank has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and the law that is the applicable and thereafter only sold the tractor and trailor in public auction. Therefore the deficiency in service cannot be attributed against the Respondent’s Bank. Accordingly this point is answered in the Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. As complainant has failed to prove his case and failed to prove deficiency in service against the Respondent’s Bank he is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
11. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 20-09-2013)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
